No, it isn't. If you change your belief, then you didn't have faith in that belief.

Do you own a dictionary?

Nowhere in any of the definitions that I have read does it say that faith in something can never change. You can perfectly have faith in something today, and not tomorrow. Nothing in the definition of faith precludes that.

Nowhere in any of the definitions that I have read does it say that faith in something can never change. You can perfectly have faith in something today, and not tomorrow. Nothing in the definition of faith precludes that.

Please show me a definition of faith that says it cannot change.

The word "change" don't have to be in the definition for it to be an inherent part of the meaning of the word.

Science can't disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns on Mars, either. But in science, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I would disagree with that, and say that your conclusion is illogical. Absence of evidence is exactly what it means; when there is no evidence, there are no affirmative conclusions to draw. Does the fact that short-tailed albatross haven't been seen in California in 20 years mean they've gone extinct? Absolutely not. It just means what it says: that no one has seen them yet. Will they ever see them? Who knows. Should you believe that they are really there now? No.

You have a theory that god exists. You design an experiment based on that hypothesis, that tests the merits of your theory. Assuming the experiment is well-designed, why would you need faith?

Compare it to an experiment to test the absolute speed of light. You design an experiment to test that theory. If your experiment is sound, then you've proven that the speed of light is absolute. Do you still need to have faith that the speed of light is absolute? No.

You have a theory that god exists. You design an experiment based on that hypothesis, that tests the merits of your theory. Assuming the experiment is well-designed, why would you need faith?

Ah, I see.

The problem is that my experiment was not aimed at determining whether God exists or not. That's not what it tests. So that's not what it ends up "proving".

To use your speed of light analogy: it would be more something like: "if the speed of light is absolute, then this (whatever it is) must be true." And you then design an experiment to test for "this". Should the experiment be successful, you will have proved "this". But you still won't be able to argue that the speed of light is necessarily absolute, because A implies B does not imply that B implies A. However, you will have significantly reinforced the probability that the speed of light is indeed absolute.

That's why my last step was to "conclude that there must be something to my perception of "God"". I didn't say "conclude that God exists", because that's not what the experiment "proved".

The problem is that my experiment was not aimed at determining whether God exists or not. That's not what it tests. So that's not what it ends up "proving".

To use your speed of light analogy: it would be more something like: "if the speed of light is absolute, then this (whatever it is) must be true." And you then design an experiment to test for "this". Should the experiment be successful, you will have proved "this". But you still won't be able to argue that the speed of light is necessarily absolute, because A implies B does not imply that B implies A. However, you will have significantly reinforced the probability that the speed of light is indeed absolute.

That's why my last step was to "conclude that there must be something to my perception of "God"". I didn't say "conclude that God exists", because that's not what the experiment "proved".

Oh I see. In that case, why would it prove that "there's something to your perception" ? If it rain, I get wet. If I'm wet, does that mean it rained? Maybe I was in the shower. (With a girl!)